Submissions are invited for a special issue of Advances in Financial Economics (Vol. 16). While Advances will continue to consider papers from any area of Finance, the focus of this issue is corporate governance, with a particular emphasis on international corporate governance issues. Authors are encouraged to submit papers that examine boards of directors, organization structure, compensation design, franchise agreements, or strategic alliances. This volume especially seeks papers that analyze these issues from a global perspective and offer insights into how governance operates internationally. This volume also invites studies that investigate the effects of corporate governance mechanisms external to the firm such as law and regulation, politics, culture, or taxes. Studies which test the corporate governance implications of the firm’s ownership structure or the divergent set of claims against the firm’s cash flows are also appropriate for this volume.

About the Journal: Advances in Financial Economics, published by the Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA, United Kingdom, is a continuing series of refereed annual journal volumes featuring original academic research in financial economics. There is no submission fee, and papers are accepted in electronic form only.

“It is a truism to state that arbitration is better than litigation, conciliation better than arbitration, and preventation of legal disputes better than conciliation.”
-Professor Schmitthoff (The Export Trade, 7th ed. p.41)A careful perusal of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004 (CAMA) and the Investments and Securities Act 2007(ISA), would reveal that they both possess no provision relating to the settlements of disputes by arbitration. The relevance and importance of arbitration or an arbitration clause, with regard to the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), private companies and public corporations cannot be overemphasized, owing to the dynamism of the society and the snail-paced nature of our judicial system in deciding cases before it.
Arbitration can be defined as the reference of a dispute or difference, between not less than two parties for determination, after hearing both sides in a judicial manner, by a person or persons other than a court of competent jurisdiction-Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd ed. Vol 2; Misr (Nig) Ltd v Oyedele (1966) 2 ALR Comm 157. An arbitration clause on the other hand has been defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed. to mean a contractual provision mandating arbitration, and thereby avoiding litigation – of disputes about the contracting parties’ rights, duties and liabilities. It should be noted at this point that even our former colonial masters (England), from which we derive the bedrock of our laws realized the importance of the above fact, and usually utilize it in business and shareholding activities; in Arenson v Arenson [1975] W.L.R 815 – issues relating to shares, shareholding, chairmanship of a private company were decided by arbitration.
Elucidating further, it won’t be much of a task if a standard provision is enshrined for the above in the CAMA, ISA, and also a provision mandating arbitration clauses in memoranda and articles of association, of both private and public companies / corporations; for instance The Trade Disputes Act, 1976 (Amendment) Act 1977, enjoins the employers and workers themselves to endeavour to resolve their trade disputes by agreements, with regard to labour, and labour issues. Contractual provision mandating arbitration, and thereby avoiding litigation – of disputes about the contracting parties’ rights, duties and liabilities. It should be noted at this point that even our former colonial masters (England), from which we derive the bedrock of our laws realized the importance of the above fact, and usually utilize it business and shareholding activities; in Arenson v Arenson [1975] W.L.R 815 – issues relating to shares, shareholding chairmanship of a private company was decided by arbitration.
Presently, in Nigeria, everything concerning arbitration and arbitration clauses is provided for in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in LFN 2004, and the various Arbitration Laws of the States. Furthermore, if arbitration (and arbitration clause) is provided for in the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004, Investments and Securities Act 2007, and companies’ articles and memoranda of association, the issue of disputes and resultant acrimony between the private and public companies / corporations on one hand and the statutory regulatory commissions on the other, would be a thing of the past. It is succinct to state at this point the inherent fear / doubt in many a reader or analyst, with respect to the foregoing, regarding the potency and enforceability of an arbitration clause. The writer confidently believes that there’s no need to entertain any fear because the court is bound to enforce it up to the apex level (Supreme Court). Further to that, is an excerpt of the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.V. Lupex v Nigerian Overseas Chartering and Shipping Ltd (2003) vol 109 L.R.C.N 1315 at 1328 as follows:
”…the basic principle of law is that where parties to a contract, have under the terms thereat agreed to submit to arbitration, if there is any dispute arising from the contract between them – a defendant who has taken no steps in the proceeding commenced by the other party may apply to the court for a stay of proceedings of the action to enable the parties go to arbitration as contracted / take advantage of arbitration as contracted.”
In conclusion, it should be stated that corporate affairs, squabbles, activities, relations and disputes are too unique to be subjected to the procedural intricacies of the courts; more so, companies cum CAC / SEC relations, shareholder cum company relations or shareholder cum director relations are too ‘sacred’ for such activities. Finally in the words of Abraham Lincoln: “Discourage litigation, persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can, point out to them how the nominal winner is often the real loser in fees, expenses and waste of time.”